Delhi District Court
Rajpal Sharma vs Lal Chand Swami on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.726/2019
CNR No.-DLWT010083012019
1. Ramwati (Wife of deceased)
Aged about 63 years
W/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma,
2. Pradeep (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged 45 years
Both R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market,
Krishna Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West,
Delhi-110086.
3. Sarita (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Mahender Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 46 years
R/o H. No. 294, Gharoti Khurd, Luxmi Garden, Agraula,
Ghaziabad-201102
4. Seema Rani (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Babbu Lal Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 44 years
R/o H. No. 103, A Block, Luxmi Garden, Loni,
Ghaziabad-201102
5. Madhu (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 36 years
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.1 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:08
+0530
R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market, Krishna
Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110086
6. Rasmi (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Amit Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 34 years
R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market, Krishna
Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110086
.............petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Chand Swami (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Hardev Swami
R/o Village Chandpur, Tehsil-Thanagaji, Alwar,
Rajasthan
2. Iffco Tokio General Company Limited (Insurer)
3rd Floor, A-13 & 37, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302021.
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 10.10.2019 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 13.02.2026 FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 04.04.2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A. First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A. from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:12 +0530
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 04.04.2019 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 10.10.2019
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay WS was filed only on
or deficiency on the part of 17.10.2020
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company in the Insurance Company present matter
14. Date of the award 13.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which --
claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.3 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 13.12.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Mentioned above Address of the claimant(s).
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/their financial condition?
AWARD FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE 1.1 The present DAR was filed on 10.10.2019 by Investigating Officer (IO).
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated 04.04.2019 which occurred at about 11:30 pm at Bhara Enclave underpass, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar East in which one Sh. Rajpal Sharma S/o Teeka Ram (hereinafter referred as "deceased") sustained injuries. FIR No. 170/2019 under Section 279/337 IPC Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.4 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:19 +0530
was registered at PS Paschim Vihar East. As per the ordersheets, on 08.01.2020, wife of the deceased appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that Sh. Rajpal Sharma had expired on 19.10.2019. She filed the copy of the death certificate of deceased Sh. Rajpal Sharma. IO was directed to verify the factum of death of the deceased and to place on record his report in this regard. As per order dt. 03.02.2020,,it was prayed by Ld. counsel for petitioner that IO be directed to file report as to whether the deceased died due to injuries suffered in accident or not. As per the order dt. 01.03.2021, reply alongwith medical opinion from Action Medical Institute was filed on behalf of DCP-1, Outer District, Delhi. As per the order dt. 22.03.2021, report was filed by the IO. It was submitted by the IO that the deceased was brought dead in emergency on 19.10.2019 and the family members of the deceased did not inform the police about the death of the deceased and conducted the cremation without postmortem. He submitted that due to the said reason, the cause of death could not be ascertained and the doctors have not given any opinion as to cause of death. He submitted that due to the said reason, the DAR cannot be filed U/s 304A IPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2021 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, the petitioner was allowed to claim compensation for death of Rajpal Sharma and it was observed that issue shall be framed as to whether Rajpal Sharma died as a result of injuries sustained in accident. 1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM at Bhara Enclave under Pass, the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:22 +0530
registration No.RJ32GC1457 (hereinafter referred as "Offending Vehicle"). As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the deceased was on scooty and was hit by the offending vehicle and fled from the spot. The offending vehicle was chased by the eye witness Balbir and intercepted at Bhera Enclave Flyover. However, the driver of the offending vehicle fled from there. The deceased was taken to Sehgal Neo Hospital, Paschim Vihar where the MLC No. 1043 dated 04.04.2019 was prepared. In the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s 279/338/379 IPC.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver-cum- owner and the respondent no.02 as the insurer of offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 .
2.1 Respondent no.01 filed the reply inter alia stating that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in any accident nor the respondent no.1 was driving the alleged offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is stated that the police in connivance with family of the deceased has manipulated the present case just to claim compensation. With these contentions, the respondent no. 1 prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.2 2.2 Respondent no.02 filed its reply wherein it is inter alia stated that no document has been filed on record by the petitioners to show that the deceased expired on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and the postmortem report of the deceased has not been placed on record. It is stated that the Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.6 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:25 +0530
driving license of the deceased has not been filed with the DAR and since the deceased was not having a valid driving license, the claim is not maintainable. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy No. M4001819 valid from 31.10.2018 to 30.10.2019 in the name of Lal Chand Swami. ISSUES
3. Vide order dt. 25.11.2021, Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed the following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased Rajpal Sharma sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. RJ32GC1457 by respondent no.01 Sh. Lal Chand Swami, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the road accident? OPP.
3. Whether the LR's of the deceased are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4.1 The petitioners examined petitioner no.6 Rasmi as PW-1 in support of their claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon copy of MLC of deceased as Ex.PW1/1, copy of discharge summary as Ex.PW1/2, DAR as Ex.PW1/3, copies of medical records of deceased as Mark A(colly) and copies of medical records of deceased as Mark B(colly) in her evidence. She was examined, Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.7 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:29 +0530
cross-examined and discharged.
4.2 Petitioners have also examined Dr. Prashant Kumar
Chaudhary, Neuro Surgeon from Sri Balaji Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as PW-2. He deposed that on 05.04.2019, Sh. Raj Pal Sharma was admitted with history of road traffic accident, he had injuries upon his head and the brain surgery of the patient was done and hametoma was removed from the affected portion. He deposed that the patient was discharged on 01.06.2019. He brought the original records of the treatment of Sh. Raj Pal Sharma after comparing the same with the medical documents - Mark 'B', Mark B was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
4.3(i) He further deposed that the patient on the date of admission was brought unconscious. He deposed that at the time of his discharge, the condition of patient improved, however, the patient was not following commands as right portion of brain was effected and hence, could be said to be in unconscious state at the time of his discharge also.
4.3(ii) In the cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that Ex.PW2/A mentions that the patient was not fully conscious even at the time of his discharge. He stated that it has been technically mentioned that patient is E4V1M5 which means E4 - eye opening is normal and spontaneous, V1 - no verbal response and M5 is localization of limbs to the pain. He further deposed that the further medication given to the patient was given to stop any further complications and the improvement would be natural only. He admitted that the patient was improving from the date of admission till his discharge due to the treatment/surgery done Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.8 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:32 +0530
and the patient was expected to improve further. Answering the Tribunal question, he stated that it takes around six months to one year for complete brain recovery. He also stated that no definite answer could be given as to how much a patient would improve and it depends upon case to case. After cross- examination, the witness was discharged. 4.4(i) The petitioners also examined Dr. Devender Sehra, Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi as PW-3. He deposed that Sh. Raj Pal Sharma was admitted in their hospital on 13.06.2019 and he remained under his care and that of Dr. Pooja Relia. He further deposed that the case of the patient was of Road Traffic Accident with Traumatic Brain injury and with history of being admitted in Balaji Hospital from 05.04.2019 to 01.06.2019. He further deposed that the said patient was discharged on 01.08.2019. He exhibited the discharge summary as Ex.PW3/1. He deposed that the patient at the time of admission had specticimia and was in critical condition as he was gasping at the time of admission and no surgery of the patient could be planned due to his bad condition. He deposed that at the time of his discharge on 01.08.2019, the patient was drowsy and arousable, the patient was discharged with advice for home care under the watch of some competent nurse and that the patient was discharged as there could be much progress in his condition even with more time of admission with their hospital under optimal care of experts.
4.4(ii) Answering to the Tribunal question, the witness stated that a Neuro surgeon/neuro surgery department who Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.9 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:35 +0530
operated the patient could answer correctly as to the chances of survival of the patient after discharge and he can only say that such patients could survive for years in same condition and if there be any infection, the life chances could be affected. 4.4(iii) Answering the Tribunal question qua the probability of the survival of the patient considering his condition at discharge, the witness stated that given the type of three-three infections which the patient had, the patient could have survived for some months, if he could have got the best of the care available.
4.4(iv) Petitioners also examined Sh. Sudhir Panwar, Executive Engineer from Janakpuri Office, Delhi Jal Board as PW-4. He deposed that the deceased Rajpal Sharma was posted in their office as Assistant Pump Driver with Employee Code:
40011854. He deposed that the deceased expired on 19.10.2019 and his retirement was due on 31.01.2021. He further deposed that last pay of the deceased Rajpal Sharma was Rs.49,773/- for the month of September, 2019. He exhibited the report qua same as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that Rs.49,773/- was the gross salary of the deceased without deduction. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that the record produced by him is false. He stated that the pay of the deceased used to be disbursed by way of NEFT in his account. After cross- examination, he was discharged.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
5.1(i) No evidence was led by respondent no. 1 and the right of respondent no. 1 to lead evidence was closed vide order dt. 17.11.2025 as no one was appearing on behalf of respondent Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:40 +0530
no. 1.
5.1(ii) Respondent no.2 has examined IO ASI Dinesh
Kumar as R3W1. He deposed that he was deputed IO in the present case on 04.04.2019. That on receiving the intimation of accident through a call on 100 number, he went to the spot of accident. He further deposed that neither the vehicle nor the injured was found at the spot of accident and also no eye witness was found. He stated that he received information from the police station that another call was received at the police station whereby it was informed that a truck has been stopped by one Balbeer Singh at the elevator road going from Bhera Enclave to District Centre, Janakpuri, whereafter he went to the disclosed spot and impounded the truck from that spot. He further deposed that he did not find any scooty at the spot of accident and even during the investigation no scooty was recovered/seized. He stated that despite his several visits to Balaji Action Hospital, he could not record the statement of the injured as he remained unconscious during his several visits to the hospital and the version of the accident was narrated to him by one Balbeer who had seen the accident.
5.1(iii) On being confronted with page no. 33 from point A to A1, of the charge-sheet, wherein it has been mentioned that "driver ghabra kar truck ko leke chala gya", the witness deposed that the truck was at Elevator road going from Bhera Enclave to District Centre, Janakpuri and it was impounded there only. 5.1(iv) He further deposed that he had got the mechanical inspection done of the offending truck bearing registration no. RJ32GC1457.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.11 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:44 +0530
5.1(v) In the cross-examination, he admitted that the owner
was served with the notice under Section 133 MV Act for disclosing details of driver and for producing the vehicle. 5.2(vi) No further evidence was led on behalf of respondent no. 2 and the evidence was closed on 17.11.2025. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the deceased never recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident and had slipped into the Coma and eventually died on 19.10.2019. It is submitted that since the deceased had expired at home, his postmortem was not conducted, however, it would be clear from the treatment record of the deceased that the deceased did not die a natural death but owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. It was argued that petitioners have proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. It was submitted that it has also been proved on record that the deceased was working as APD with Delhi Jal Board and proof of his salary has been brought on record as Ex.PW4/A. It is submitted that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident and keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement of petitioners.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 6.2 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that as per the mechanical inspection report, there was no damage on the vehicle and, Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.12 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:48 +0530
therefore, the factum of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle is not established on record. He further argued that it is also not proved that the injured expired on account of the injuries sustained in the accident as no postmortem report has been filed by the petitioners and the treatment record of the deceased is also not verified by the IO, though the DAR was filed on 10.10.2019 and the injured remained under treatment only uptil 01.08.2019. He argued that as per the statement of PW2, the patient was improving and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He further argued that even PW3 stated that he could not affirm or deny regarding the cause of death of the injured. He further argued that there are also contradictions in the statement of the IO and the charge sheet qua the spot of recovery/ seizure of the offending vehicle. He submitted that as per the statement of the IO, he had seized the vehicle from some place near the place of accident whereas as per the charge sheet, the same was seized after service of notice. The counsel further argued that even the scooty of the deceased was not recovered and, therefore, the same raises a suspicion on the case of the petitioners. It was argued that in view of the evidence on record, the factum of the happening of the incident and the involvement of the truck is not established. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Rajamma & Ors. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr." Civil Appeal Nos. 5172 of 2025 decided on 26.09.2025 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Keith Rowe vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors." MAC. APP.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:52 +0530
No. 601/2007 decided on 15.01.2010 in support of his contentions.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ON ISSUES 7.1 Before proceeding with the analysis and findings on issues, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties including the judgments cited on record. Keeping in mind the above legal propositions, the issues framed in the present matter are decided as under :
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the deceased Rajpal Sharma sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. RJ32GC1457 by respondent Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.14 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:54 +0530
no.01 Sh. Lal Chand Swami, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
8.1 In support of their case, the petitioners have examined Ms. Rasmi as PW-1 who has relied upon the copy of MLC of deceased as Ex.PW1/1, copy of discharge summary as Ex.PW1/2, DAR as Ex.PW1/3, copies of medical records of the deceased Mark A(colly) and copies of medical records of the deceased as Mark B(colly) in her evidence. She has categorically stated that the deceased was admitted at Sehgal Neo Hospital where his MLC was prepared and thereafter the deceased was treated at Shri Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar. She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2. No cross examination was done on the aspect of occurrence of the accident on 04.04.2019, rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 and involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident as well as qua the cause of the injuries of the deceased Rajpal Sharma. The documents relied upon by the PW1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Further, the statement of PW1 is corroborated by the testimony of PW2 and the medical record of the petitioner Ex.PW2/A (OSR) as per which, the deceased was brought to Balaji Action Hospital on 05.04.2019 with the history of RTA as well as by the MLC No. 1043 dated 04.04.2019 wherein also it is recorded that the patient has been brought with alleged RTA. The DAR filed by the IO and the documents annexed with it also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
8.2 Further respondent no.1 namely Lal Chand Swami has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/338/379 IPC by the Investigating Agency after Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.15 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:58 +0530
arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of detailed investigation carried out by it, that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was being driven in rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. Thus, it sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.
8.3 Furthermore, DAR filed by the IO also includes the final report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by IO in FIR No.170/2019, MLC of deceased, site plan of the place of accident, notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply, statement of eye witness Balbir singh recorded on 06.04.2019, seizure memos etc., which clearly show that the deceased sustained injuries in the road vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. 8.4 It has been averred by respondent no. 1 in his pleadings that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present matter. However, respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence to prove his defence. There is nothing on record to suggest that any complaint has been filed by respondent no. 1 before any authority regarding his false implication. Respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:00 +0530
box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
8.5 As per the charge-sheet, during investigation the eye witness Sh. Balbeer Singh was found who had provided the details of the offending vehicle whereafter the ownership details of the same were traced and notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act was issued to the owner. Upon service of the notice, the respondent no. 1 appeared in the police station on 07.04.2019 and produced the offending vehicle whereupon it was seized vide the seizure memo. The RC, the DL, the insurance, the permit and fitness of the offending vehicle were also seized. Notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply by respondent no. 1 is on record. In the reply, the respondent no. 1 has admitted the ownership of the offending vehicle and also that on the date of incident and at the time of accident, he was driving the offending vehicle. As per the record filed with the DAR, the offending vehicle has been released to the respondent no. 1 on superdari.
8.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that it is not the case of the respondent/ insurance company that the offending vehicle has been planted by the police and the respondent no. 1 has been falsely implicated. The insurance company has also not pleaded any collusion between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the insurance company has filed any complaint with any authority regarding the false implication of the offending vehicle. 8.7 Further, no reason has been deputed as to why the Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:03 +0530
Investigating Officer would falsely implicate the offending vehicle.
8.8 Thus, from the above discussion and upon holistic analysis of the material on record, it is clear that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. 8.9 As far as the contradiction in the statement of the IO and the contents of the charge sheet qua the spot of impounding of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that since the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question has been proved, merely a contradiction qua the spot of seizure of the offending vehicle cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the claimants to deny compensation to them when there is nothing on record to doubt the involvement of the offending vehicle. Even otherwise, as per the charge sheet, the offending vehicle was impounded vide seizure memo. As per the seizure memo dt. 07.04.2019 on record, the offending vehicle was produced by the respondent no. 1 Sh. Lal Chand Swami at the police station whereupon it was impounded. There is also statement of eye witness Sh. Balbeer Singh recorded U/s 161 CrPC on 06.04.2019 in which the said witness had stated that the truck No. RJ-32GC-1457 had hit someone on a scooty and fled from the spot and he had chased him and stopped him at Bhrav underpass, however, he fled from there. In his subsequent statement also recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC, the said witness has stated that he had visited the police station on 07.04.2019 where he found the driver of the offending vehicle. In the said statement, the said witness had identified the driver of the Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:05 +0530
offending vehicle to be the same person whom he had stopped. The site plan on record has also been signed by the said Balbeer Singh. The said Balbeer Singh has not been examined as a witness by the respondents.
8.10 The judgment in "Rajamma & Ors. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr (Supra)." relied upon by the counsel for respondent no. 2 is not applicable to the facts of the case.
8.11 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimants have successfully proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in road accident on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 pm at Bhara Enclave underpass, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number RJ32GC1457 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the road accident? OPP.
9.1 The burden to prove the present issue was placed on petitioners. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Dr. Prashant Kumar Chaudhary, Neuro Surgeon from Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as PW-2. He deposed that on 05.04.2019, deceased Rajpal Sharma was admitted in an unconscious state with history of road traffic accident and injuries upon his head. He deposed that the brain surgery of the patient was done and hametoma was removed Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:08 +0530
from the affected portion. He further deposed that the patient was discharged on 01.06.2019 and at the time of discharge, his condition had improved, however, could be said to be in unconscious state at the time of his discharge as he was not following commands as right portion of brain was effected. The witness has proved the medical record of the patient as Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
9.2 In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the fact of his not being fully conscious is mentioned in the Ex.PW2/A. The witness also deposed that the improvement of the patient had to be natural and medications were given only to prevent further complications. He has deposed that the patient had improved uptil his discharge and was expected to improve further. However, he stated that it depends upon case to case as to how much a patient would improve and no definite answer can be given. He stated that it takes around 6 months to one year for complete brain recovery. Thus, clearly even after around 2 months of treatment at the hospital, the deceased was discharged in an unconscious state with only an expectation of his improvement. Also as per the testimony of PW2, improvement of such patients depends upon case to case and there is no definite opinion as to whether the deceased would have certainly improved.
9.3 The petitioner has also examined Dr. Devender Sehra, Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi as PW-3. As per the testimony of PW3, the deceased was re-hospitalized on 13.06.2019 in critical condition with specticimia and was Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:11
+0530
gasping at the time of admission. As per PW3, no surgery could be planned due to the bad condition of the deceased and he was discharged on 01.08.2019 in a drowsy and arousable state with advice for home care under the watch of some competent nurse. As per PW3, the deceased could have survived for some months if given the best of care available, given the kind of infections which he had. The witness has proved the discharge summary of the deceased as Ex.PW3/1.
9.4 From the testimony of PW2 and PW3, it is clear that the deceased remained hospitalized for around 4 months from the date of accident except the interregnum period of a few days. On his second admission, he was put on a ventilator, was affected with hypokalemia and pneumonia and was given unit of packed blood cells on several dates and was drousy and arousable at the time of his discharge, as per his discharge summary dt. 01.08.2019 Ex.PW3/1. As per the prescription dated 03.10.2019, the deceased had developed bed sores which in the considered opinion of this Tribunal is indicative of his continuous bed ridden state. As per the prescription dated 03.10.2019, the deceased was also diagnosed with 'yellow secretion TT'. On 19.10.2019, the deceased was declared brought dead as per the prescription cum triage card dated 19.10.2019. Under the head presenting complaints, it is mentioned "Pt. K/C/O- RTA- 4 months back F/B tracheotomy-bed ridden....". Thus, from the above, it is clear that the deceased never fully recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident and was repeatedly taken to hospital with complaints of gasping, infections, pneumonia and bed sores etc. During his two hospitalization, he was never discharged in a fully conscious Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:14 +0530
or a recovered state. In fact, as per PW3, the patient could have survived for some months given the kind of injections he had. There is nothing on record to suggest that after his second discharge from the hospital, the condition of the deceased improved. The conclusion that can be drawn from the combined reading of the testimony of PW2 and PW3 is that though the condition of such patients, as the deceased, may improve, however, there is no certainty of improvement in every case. In fact, as per PW3, the deceased could have survived for a few months.
9.5 The deceased has expired within six and a half months from the date of accident while under continuous treatment. No intervening new circumstances have been proved on record to show that the deceased did not die of the injuries sustained in the accident but due to some other reasons. In these circumstances, the non-existence of a postmortem report or information to the police is not fatal to the case of the petitioners. From a conjoint reading of the entire medical evidence on record and the testimony of the witnesses examined in the present matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the deceased died on 19.10.2019 on account of the injuries sustained in the accident on 04.04.2019.
9.6 I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meenakshi Gupta & Ors.", MAC. APP.1122/2017 decided on 19.07.2019 wherein it was held as under :
"6. Interestingly, in Abdul Rahim (supra) reference was made to the decision of the Patna High Court in Vijaylaxmi Devi & Ors. vs. Ram Naresh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 1140, in which neither the post-mortem report nor Medical Reports Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:17 +0530
from the doctor, who had examined the deceased and declared him dead, were produced to prove that he had died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Furthermore, in Abdul Rahim (supra) the Court had also referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Khairullah vs. Amita 1994 ACJ 1017, wherein the injured died 25 days after the accident but no post-mortem was done, yet it was held that the accident could be deduced as the cause of death from the Death Certificate as well as evidence of the public witnesses. In effect, failure of the doctors to either perform a post-mortem or the same not being issued by the hospital for any reason, cannot be a ground to stop a claim for compensation.
7. In the present case too, the non-filing of the post-mortem report would not defeat the claimants' case, as all the other medical reports, post surgery medication, bills of medicines, frequent follow up visits of hospitals clearly indicate that his injured condition worsened with the passage of time, to which he ultimately succumbed."
9.7 Thus, the issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the LR's of the deceased are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 In view of the findings & decision in above issues, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments in "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 and "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:20 +0530
MULTIPLIER
10.3 The date of incident is 04.04.2019. As per the discharge summary of the deceased dt. 05.04.2019, the deceased was 58 years 1 month and 13 days of age at the time of his admission in hospital on 05.04.2019. Hence, age of the deceased is considered as such i.e. 58 years 1 month and 13 days. INCOME OF THE DECEASED 10.4 Petitioners have claimed that deceased was working as Assistant Pump Driver (E& M) with Delhi Jal Board and was getting a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month at the time of incident.
The petitioner side examined Sh. Sudhir Panwar, Executive Engineer from Delhi Jal Board as PW-4 who has proved on record the report of salary of deceased as PW4/A. As per Ex.PW4/A, the total salary of the deceased was Rs.49,773/- per month. Ex.PW4/A is a report providing the emolument details of the preceeding month before the death of the employee i.e. the deceased and is not a salary slip. The said report give the various heads of the salary of the deceased as basic pay, DA and HRA. Thus, the above mentioned amount is the gross salary of the deceased and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Another (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the income tax is liable to be deducted from the gross salary as proved vide Ex.PW4/A, for the purposes of calculating just compensation awardable to the petitioners. The assessment year applicable in the instant case would be 2020-2021. The rate of tax on the income slab of Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.7,50,000/- was 10%. As such, the salary of the deceased on the date of incident needs to be taken as Rs. 44,796/- (after deduction of income tax @10%).
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.24 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:23 +0530
FUTURE PROSPECTS
10.5(i) The deceased was 58 years at the time of incident,
had a permanent job, so the future prospects have to be calculated at 15% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors."(supra).
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased after adding future prospects would be Rs. 51,516/- (after rounding off Rs.51,515.4/-) (Rs.44,796/- + Rs.6719.4/- which is 15% of Rs.44,796/-).
DEDUCTIONS 10.6(i) There is no dispute that the deceased was survived by his wife (petitioner no.1), one major son(petitioner no.2) and married daughters (petitioner no.3 to 6). In the cross-examination of PW-1, merely a suggestion has been given that petitioner no.2 to 6 were not financial dependent upon deceased at the time of incident. Thus, all the LR's of the deceased have to be treated as dependent in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender & Ors." Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 decided on 13.01.2020, and in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Seema Rani & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors", Civil Appeal no. 2323 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2025 and in "Balesh Devi & ors Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. & Ors." MAC. APP. 606/2025 decided on 12.11.2025. 10.6(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender & Ors." has held as under:-
15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:26 +0530
the deceased have a right to apply for compensation.
Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years".
10.6(iii) In view of the same, all the petitioners are considered as dependent upon the deceased. Thus, Deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased in case of 06 dependent needs to be taken as 1/4th . Hence, 1/4th of the income would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
10.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.38,637/- (after deducting 1/4th of Rs.51,516/-) and accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would be Rs.4,63,644/- (Rs.38,637/- x 12).
10.8 It has already been discussed above that the deceased was an employee with Delhi Jal Board and was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident. Thus, as per settled principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and also in view of the law discussed in the judgment in Govind Singh Mauni Vs. Tej Bhan & Ors., MAC. APP No.1113/2013 decided on 09.02.2026, the multiplier as applicable in the present case is 9.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.26 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:28 +0530
10.9 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as
Rs.41,72,796/- (Rs.4,63,644/- x 9).
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS 10.10(i) In "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", it was held by The Hon'ble Apex court as under :-
"61... (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years".
10.10(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the judgment in " Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE& FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.11 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.12 Since, there were six claimants i.e. the wife and five children of the deceased, an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 06) is awarded under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION 10.13 In view of above discussions, the total compensation is calculated as under:-
SL.NO. HEADS RUPEES
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.41,72,796/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:31 +0530
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-
TOTAL Rs.45,00,796/-
11. Thus, total compensation of Rs.45,00,796/-
(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety Six Only) is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
R E L I E F / ISSUE NO.05
12. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby passes an award of Rs.45,00,796/-(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 10.10.2019 till the date of the payment of the award amount (excluding interest w.e.f. 31.08.2022 to 09.09.2024) to be paid by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 13.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 13.12.2025. It is pertinent to mention Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.28 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:35 +0530
here that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner Ramwati has expired on 08.11.2024. Petitioner Seema in the statement recorded on 13.12.2025 has deposed that she wants to give her share of compensation to all legal heirs of the deceased in equal shares and thus, the same may be equally distributed amongst them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs with cumulative . r/ injured/ be released interest claimant decease d
1. Pradeep DOB: Son Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
@ 04.10. 11,25,199/- along with along with Pradeep 1978 along with proportionate proportionate Kumar proportionate interest interest shall be interest kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
2. Sarita @ DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
Sareeta 01.01. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
1977 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:43
+0530
cumulative interest.
3. Madhu DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
05.05. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
1987 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
cumulative interest.
4. Rasmi @ DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
Rashmi 01.10. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
Sharma 1989 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
cumulative interest.
TOTAL Rs.45,00,796/-(Rupees Forty Five
Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety
Six Only)
13.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 13.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.30 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:47 +0530
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
14. Petitioners are directed to file photocopies of bank passbook of their MACT Bank within 15 days from today vide separate application.
15. The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to release/disburse share of award amount of petitioners in their MACT bank accounts near the place of their residence to be disclosed by the petitioners vide separate application within 15 days from today as mentioned/directed hereinbefore in tabulated form.
16. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
17. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:51
+0530
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
18. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent no.2 after making necessary entry on CIS on 20.03.2026.
19. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
20. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
21. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 13th of February, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/13.02.2026 Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:54 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 04.04.2019
2. Name of the deceased : Rajpal Sharma
3. Age of the deceased : 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Assistant Pump Driver (E& M) with Delhi Jal Board
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.44,796/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Pradeep @ Pradeep DOB: 04.10.1978 Son
Kumar
(ii) Sarita @ Sareeta DOB: 01.01.1977 Daughter
(iii) Madhu DOB:05.05.1987 Daughter
(iv) Rasmi @ Rashmi DOB: 01.10.1989 Daughter
Sharma
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.44,796/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 15%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4th
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.38637/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.4,63,644/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 9
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.41,72,796/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,88,000/-
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:57 +0530
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.45,00,796/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.17,49,684/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 10.10.2019 to
13.02.2026 excluding
interest w.e.f.
31.08.2022 to
09.09.2024 which
comes to 4 years 3
months and 25 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.62,50,480/-
(L + M) (Rs.45,00,796/- +
Rs.17,49,684/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.45,00,796/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.40,00,000/- along
with proportionate
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 20.03.2026 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/13.02.2026 Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:46:05
+0530